Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc
A basic part of our job description is to be able to explain our rulings should they be appropriately disputed. Being totally unable to rationally explain any logic, purpose or practical application associated with the Redding's interpretation, I can only conclude the Redding's interpretation is incorrect.
|
I don't agree with this. Even if a rule "doesn't make sense" I don't believe we're supposed to interpret it in such a way until it conforms with our logic--even if everyone on the field agrees what the "logical" ruling should be.
Specifically, using my ricochet play, I'd tell the coach that it's technically legal.* I might even go so far as to sympathize with him when he insists, with vehemence, rage, and a fair amount of spittle, that it SHOULDN'T be legal.
But until the rules are changed, it should be ruled legal, regardless of how illogical it may seem.
*this is assuming the ricochet play is in fact, legal. If I'm missing something about the player running out of bounds before batting it back in, someone please point it out. thanks!